Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

gcc.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 338 posts

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#311

Post by aurelius »

e12e wrote: post #148
aurelius wrote: post #90

"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us." See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology. Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE…

> For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products. Counterpoint: Say I'm writing a new OS, and want to use the hardware I bought. How do I port the CUDA compiler? Porting GCC (or LLVM) should be pretty easy -- but that doesn't…

Do you not benefit from newer technology delivered at lower costs? Do you not benefit from more paying jobs to work on open source software?

What RMS has a problem with is the fact that companies don't (and shouldn't) always tell you how their products work. Just because you bought something doesn't give you the right to know all of its secrets. If he (or you) is not ok with that, then fine, he lives in America, he has the freedom to disagree. His solution, however, is to try to restrict the freedom of people and companies when it comes to software and software reuse. That's what I have a problem with.

Thankfully, I think LLVM and clang represent the coming ultimate triumph of the Berkeley school of software freedom. The clouds of the Cambridge school have overshadowed the software world for far too long.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#312

Post by e12e »

aurelius wrote: post #311
e12e wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products. Counterpoint: Say I'm writing a new OS, and want to use the hardware I bought. How do I port the CUDA compiler? Porting GCC (or LLVM) should be pretty easy -- but that doesn't…

Do you not benefit from newer technology delivered at lower costs? Do you not benefit from more paying jobs to work on open source software? What RMS has a problem with is the fact that companies don't (and shouldn't) always tell you how their products work. Just because you bought something doesn't give you the right to know all of its secrets. If he (or you) is not ok with that, then fine, he lives in America, he h…

As I try to support companies that work for a more open architecture, no, I do not benefit from proprietary advances by Nvidia. I would also argue that free research, open technology in general leads to lower costs and higher productivity than closed equivalents -- while they might lead to lower profits (and less concentration of wealth). But since I don't own Nvidia, I don't benefit from their profits.

RMS has just made a choice that he'd like to do his bit to enforce openness and freedom. Everyone is still free not to use GPL software, just as they are free to not use proprietary operating systems. And without the FSF and RMS, I think we'd have a lot less choice in that regard.

There's lots of paying jobs for working on free software too -- we can (and do) have both.

As for:

> Just because you bought something doesn't give you the right to know all of its secrets.

Perhaps not. But I'd argue you should have the right to use it as you see fit. I don't need to know all the details of a chair to sit on it, use it to reach the top shelf, or burn it to keep warm -- to use it as intended by the manufacturer and otherwise. I do need to know a bit about my graphics card to use it efficiently.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#313

Post by nzp »

gillianseed wrote: post #190
ridiculous_fish wrote: post #83

> [Clang and LLVM] have been supported by Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. It's worth pointing out that GCC also "has been supported" by Apple, especially around PowerPC support and the PFE implementation. If you can get past the insane "War on Terror" rhetoric, that is.

It's worth pointing out that Steve Jobs at NeXT was a prime example of the benefits of a policy against proprietary linking as Jobs tried to have GCC be the backend of their (NeXT's) proprietary ObjectiveC front end. He (Jobs) was not allowed to do this due to the licencing (GPL) which is what led to GCC getting a ObjectiveC frontend merged which was then available to all GCC users. Had Jobs had his way, only NeXT us…

Well, when you spin it like that... I'm no Steve Jobs apologist, but I think it's important to get the facts straight. NeXT wanted to distribute the frontend as .o files which the user would link with the backend, true. Now, the way you present it makes it seems as though NeXT was hell bent on having a proprietary frontend, but were strongarmed by the GPL to release under the GPL. What actually happened is that Jobs asked RMS if he thought it would be OK to distribute the frontend as .o files, to which Stallman said that it probably would be OK (from a legal standpoint), but then consulted a lawyer who told him that the judge would probably think this is not OK. So RMS then tells Jobs that FSF believes this is not allowed by the GPL. Then NeXT produces GPLed frontend. Notice how smooth all of this went. No attempts of subversion by NeXT or disputing FSF's opinion, they asked, were given a legally worthless negative opinion which they accepted and produced a free frontend. So yes, technically it happened because of the GPL (but only on an assumption that the judge would accept FSF's lawyer reasoning) but based on what actually happened there is no evidence of Jobs wanting to "have his way". If Jobs "hated" "our freedom" and the GPL was the only thing that stood between us and slavery as RMS likes to think, this would unlikely go without any friction whatsoever.

Sources for what happened: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-ob...

EDIT: Another source, the first paragraph is telling: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pB...

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#314

Post by NAFV_P »

gress wrote: post #279
NAFV_P wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What 'users' of clang and gcc are not developers? I use gcc, and I work as a treesurgeon.

Do you not develop software with it?

I compile my C source code with it, or other people's. I don't sell the programs that I write, or get paid for writing them - for those reasons I don't consider myself to be a software developer, most of my peers think I am wasting my time.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#315

Post by aurelius »

e12e wrote: post #148
aurelius wrote: post #90

"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us." See, this is why I hate Stallman's position on anything software. It's based on irrational thinking derived from a flawed ideology. Since LLVM is not copylefted, EVERYONE…

> For example, NVIDIA based their CUDA compiler on LLVM because it was not copylefted. Thanks to LLVM not being copylefted, NVIDIA was able to reduce their R&D time, provide customers with great technology, and consequently sell more products. Counterpoint: Say I'm writing a new OS, and want to use the hardware I bought. How do I port the CUDA compiler? Porting GCC (or LLVM) should be pretty easy -- but that doesn't…

Do you not benefit from newer technology delivered at lower costs? Do you not benefit from more paying jobs to work on open source software?

What RMS has a problem with is the fact that companies don't (and shouldn't) always tell you how their products work. Just because you bought something doesn't give you the right to know all of its secrets. If he (or you) is not ok with that, then fine, he lives in America, he has the freedom to disagree. His solution, however, is to try to restrict the freedom of people and companies when it comes to software and software reuse. That's what I have a problem with.

Thankfully, I think LLVM and clang represent the coming ultimate triumph of the Berkeley school of software freedom. The clouds of the Cambridge school have overshadowed the software world for far too long.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#316

Post by ChuckMcM »

blacksmythe wrote: post #310
ChuckMcM wrote: post #64

I am surprised he isn't railing against all the folks selling GCC for extortionate rates to the embedded community. IAR, KEIL, others, $3,000 - $6,000 for a "development tool" which is 99% gcc and 1% some startup code the vendor wrote. Nice margins I guess.

>> 99% gcc and 1% some startup code Modifying and selling gcc to compile code optimized for lots of different underpowered processors sounds like an unattractive business model to me, given (I assume) a relatively small number of customers for any given microprocessor type and (again I assume) a significant amount of work for each microprocessor type supported.

Sort of. There are folks who have C compilers optimized for smaller processors, my personal favorite are the folks at ImageCraft. That isn't what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about people who take the community developed gcc (which they haven't "optimized" at all) and Eclipse config, and some of their own startup code crt0.a + linkerscript. And then put that together as their tool for $3,000. I'm sure its a wonderful business for them.

RMS was railing that clang wasn't embodying the spirit of "free software" because it parts could be proprietary, but he doesn't rail against those people like IAR who keep their parts proprietary but are riding on the shoulders of the community doing the heavy lifting.

I find that notable because I like what the folks are trying to achieve with clang and do not like what IAR has done with gcc. Granted it is entirely my own personal pain point.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#317

Post by gress »

teddyh wrote: post #306
gress wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am against patents, and I agree that by implication copyright is harmful too. I tend not to be an absolutist so am still considering my position on it, but I can't really defend copyright strongly.

Well then; Should copyright cease to exist, the GPL would have no power and would no longer have any meaning. But while copyright does exist, the GPL will continue to work against the imbalance of power copyright (and, lately, patents) create. If I may make a parable: Don’t hate the rebels for being violent; hate the oppressive state against which they rebel.

The GPL doesn't work against the imbalance of power created by copyrights. It works to strengthen it by reducing the options for individual creators to make money from their efforts, and buttressing the power of established interests.

But - you make a good point - a good reason to be against copyright is because abolishing it would defeat the GPL.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#318

Post by gress »

kevin_bauer wrote: post #290
gress wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true but irrelevant because the freedom to distribute software without the source code does not take away anyone else's rights.

I beg to differ! As the NSA-debacle shows, it takes my right away to a) ensure there's no backdoor, b) the software i get does exactly what was promised and c) in a way and quality as advertised. Furthermore take a look at the "USL v. BSDi" lawsuit, where BSD was sued by AT&T for infringing copyright-laws against their own(BSD) source-code, which was incorporated into USL(AT&T's) UNIX-variants! "Freedom" comes with r…

The NSA debacle is irrelevant to this and source code doesn't guarantee any of the desires you state there. I recommend studying software verification if you are unsure of this.

Furthermore they are not rights - they are desires.

You are free to negotiate terms with people from whom you obtain software, and you are free to refuse software without source code.

What the GPL seeks to do is force other people not to be free to choose their own terms.

Whether you like the effects of the GPL or not, it has nothing to do with freedom.

Re: Richard Stallman - Re: clang vs free software

#320

Post by eurleif »

dllthomas wrote: post #291
eurleif wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't distribute someone else's GPL code in a way that allows other people to redistribure it with more restrictions. That's a big deal if you want to mix GPL code with your BSD-licensed project, even if you don't personally touch any non-free software.

Hm, you can mix GPL code with your previously BSD-licensed project, and release the result under the GPL. However, I'll grant that that's strictly an exception there as I worded things. The only thing that could be done with the hypothetically-still-bsd combined work that couldn't be done with the perfectly allowed GPL combined work is to add more restrictions, though, so I think my general point still stands. That s…

>The only thing that could be done with the hypothetically-still-bsd combined work that couldn't be done with the perfectly allowed GPL combined work is to add more restrictions, though, so I think my general point still stands.

That's true, but if I'm a person whose only goal in life is to maximize free software, I may still be rationally motivated to license my project BSD instead of GPL. A BSD-licensed project can sometimes attract more users. Of course, that is because some of them will use it in their own non-free projects; but in many cases, their project would have been non-free anyway, and they would have just used someone else's code instead of mine, or written their own. If they use my project, it makes my project's ecosystem stronger, which is good for free software.

Post reply on HN